A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN COMMUNICATIVEDRILL AND ROLE PLAY TOWARDS STUDENTS’

SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE FIRST GRADE OFSMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

By

Nurina Ulfa

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2016

i

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN COMMUNICATIVE DRILL ANDROLE PLAY OF STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE

FIRST GRADE OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

By

Nurina Ulfa

The objectives of this research were to investigate whether there was a significantdifference in students’ speaking achievement after being taught by usingCommunicative Drill and Role Play and to investigate what aspect of speakingthat increase the most in each technique. This research was conducted at the firstgrade of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung.

This research was quantitative research using Two Groups Pre-test Post-testDesign. The researcher chose two classes as the sample of experimental classes toconduct the research. The data were collected from the result of pre-tests and post-tests in both classes. Then, both classes were given three treatments each, the firstclass was using Communicative Drill and the second class was using Role Play.After getting the data, the researcher analyzed it using Paired Sample t-test.

The result showed that the mean score of post-test in the Communicative Drillclass was 76.85 and the mean of post-test in the Role Play class was 87.42. Alpha(α) was 0.00 and it showed that it was lower than 0.05 (α <0.05). It means thatRole Play had higher gain than Communicative Drill in teaching speaking. Theaspect that increased the most in Communicative Drill was fluency andpronunciation in Role Play. Role Play was an interesting activity which madestudents develop their own imagination to be someone else to have conversation.On the other hand, Communicative Drill needed the students to do theconversation based on the guided reply, so it made them difficult to develop theirown conversation.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN COMMUNICATIVEDRILL AND ROLE PLAY TOWARDS STUDENTS’

SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE FIRST GRADE OFSMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

By

Nurina Ulfa

A ScriptSubmitted in a Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirement for S-1 Degree

in

The Language and Arts Departments ofThe Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2016

ii

CURRICULUM VITAE

The writer was born on February 11th 1995 in Bandar Lampung, Lampung.

She is the first child and the only one daughter of Ahmad Ismail, S. H., M. Si., and

Lutfia Shofa. She also has two younger brothers; Y. A. Sabil Ismail and Y. A. Hafiz.

In 2000, the writer graduated from TK Aisyiyah Bandar Lampung. In the

same year, she entered SD Muhammadiyah Bandar Lampung for a year, then she

moved to SD Al-Kautsar Bandar Lampung at the second year until she graduated

there in 2006. Then, she studied in SMP N 1 Bandar Lampung and finished it in

2009. After she graduated from junior high school, she continued her study at SMA

Al-Kautsar Bandar Lampung and graduated in 2012.

In 2012, she entered a university, majoring English Education Study Program,

Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Lampung University. She joined in

Teaching Practice Program (PPL) at SMA N 1 Pagar Dewa, West Lampung from

July 27th to September 19th 2015. She did her research from 23th March 30th, 2016 to

April 25th, 2016.

iii

DEDICATION

This script is proudly dedicated to:

My beloved parents

Ahmad Ismail, S. H., M. Si., and Lutfia Shofa

My beloved younger brothersY. A. Sabil Ismail

Y. A. Hafiz

My Almamater

iv

MOTTO

“Carpe Diem”

-Horace (Odes)

“So verily, with the hardship, there is relief. Verily, with the hardship, there isrelief.”

-Quran 94:5-6

v

AKCNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamiin, Praise is merely to the Mightiest Allah SWT for the

gracious mercy and tremendous blessing that enables me to accomplish this script

entitled “A Comparative Study Between Communicative Drill and Role Play towards

Students’ Speaking Achievement at the First Grade of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung.”

Shalawat and Salaam is for Prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his followers, and

all Moslems. This script is submitted as one of the requirement to finish her Bachelor

degree at English Education Study Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty,

Lampung University.

The writer would like to express gratitude to:

1. Dr. Flora, M.Pd., as the writer’s first advisor, for her willingness to give

assistance, ideas, and encouragements within her time during the script

writing process.

2. Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M. A., as the writer’s second advisor, for his

kindness, patience, comments, and suggestions in guiding the writer

finishing the script.

3. Drs. Huzairin, M. Pd., as the writer’s examiner, for his encouragements,

contributions, and suggestions to improve this script better.

vi

4. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A., as the Chief of English Education Study Program

and all lecturers of English Education Study Program who have

contributed their guidance during the completion process until

accomplishing this script.

5. Dr. Mulyanto Widodo, M.Pd., as the chairperson of Language and Arts

Education Department for his contribution and attention.

6. Drs. Suharto, M. Pd., and Sudarisman S. Pd., as the headmaster and vice

headmaster of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung who had given the permission

to conduct the research in the school.

7. Efi Hindriani, S. Pd., as the english teacher of SMA N 7 Bandar Lampung,

for her help, encouragement, and also her stories.

8. My beloved parents Ahmad Ismail, S. H., and Lutfia Shofa for their

endless love, support, and prayer for their one and only daughter.

9. My gamer brothers Y. A. Sabil Ismail and Y. A. Hafiz for their time, help

and support. Thanks for the too often critics and the jokes about

graduation.

10. My another advisors, Yosua Permata, Paullo Bastan Kitta Bangun, Ayu

Lucky Widiasari, Ahmad Taqim, Insani Salma and Nidia Putri, thank you

so much for your time, critics, suggestion and your patience to help me to

finish this script.

11. Just Speak Team; Fadlan Satria, Aulia Afifah, Raissa Utami, Zakiyah,

Khairun Nisa, Reinaldy Aulia, Dhia Hasanah, Bassma Baligrna, Susan

vii

Rizki, Reyhan Affandi, M. Ivo, Akbar, Josua Rolos, Novita, Teika

Ameiratrini, Shintia Sinaga, Annisa Efri and Vetty R. Astika.

12. My lovely mates on campus Tajins; Cecille Ameilia K., Desy Wulandari,

Dharin Okta S., Dian Tika Cahyanti, Faradilah Bari, Putri Satya F., Sella

Merista, and Yolanda Rizki P. Thank you for always be there right from

the start and never leave.

13. My super-silly-but-awesome friends in ED 2012 who are very helpful in

chat rooms and real life, Bipolars; Yosua, Anggi, Taqim, Dilla, Dian,

Lucky, Sani, AyuPrat, Tiwi, Ara, Paullo, Adit, Rangga, Jeni, Syafira,

Ami, Andre, Ulfi, Nina, Ryan, Alin, Desy, Fara, Indah, Iis, Rahma, Kiky,

Winda, Pipit, Rifka, Yolan, Eka, Cile and Anjar. Thanks for the trash talk

in the middle of the night, plans that only will be plans, and other

craziness!

14. My besties since junior high CLC; Rizki Maharani, Suci Saraswati, Dian

Tika C., Pratiwi Saputri, Santi Nurhasanah, Rahmah Khairina, Rizky

Khairina, Tiara Octariana, Yesi Eka Molita, Marisa Triana Mazta, and

Sofiana Rahmayani. Thanks for all of the laughter we shared since junior

high, support, prayer, stories, movies, K-dramas and food.

15. My high school dearest mates; Ilya Arina, Inna Rahmania, Wahyuningrum

Sekar D. R., Citra Laras Maharani, Yose Trimiarti, Linggar Arief, Ido

Bimi, and Zuhri Muhammad. Thank you for all of the support, prayer, the

peculiar things we do when we meet, slapsticks and all of the silly-but-

precious things. See you on top!

viii

16. KKN/PPL Team SMA N 1 Pagar Dewa; Khabib, Bagas, Arum, Jiba, Uni,

Risma, Rizki, Luna, and Wayan.

17. Other English Department 2012 members and the seniors who cannot be

mentioned one by one.

Finally, I gratefully thank to everyone who was important to the successful

realization of this script. The writer realizes that this script is far from being perfect,

but it is expected that it will be useful not only for the researcher, but also for the

readers. For this reason, constructive thoughtful suggestion and critics are welcomed.

Bandar Lampung, July 29th, 2016

Nurina Ulfa

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………. i

CURRICULUM VITAE………………………………………. ii

DEDICATION…………………………………………………. iii

MOTTO………………………………………………………… iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………….. v

TABLE OF CONTENT……………………………………….. ix

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background.…………………………………………………… 1

1.2. Problem……......……………………………………………… 5

1.3.Objective..……………………………………………………… 6

1.4. Uses...…………………………………………………........... 6

1.5. Scope...........…………………………………………………... 6

1.6.Definition of terms……………………………………………… 7

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Speaking……………………………………………………… 8

2.2. Types of Speaking.………………………………………........ 9

2.3. Teaching Speaking......………………………………………… 11

2.4. Active Learning.........…………………………………............ 12

2.5. Communicative Drill........…………………………………...... 15

2.6. Role Play ........................………………………………........ 17

2.7. Teaching Speaking Using Communicative Drill……………... 20

2.8. Teaching Speaking Using Role Play..........……...………....... 21

2.9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Communicative Drill…...... 22

2.10. Advantages and Disadvantages of Role Play..........…… 23

2.11. Theoretical Assumption................... ……..........……… 23

2.12. Hypothesis ..................…...…………………………… 24

III. RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Research Design……………………………………………….. 25

3.2. Population and Sample……………………………………….... 26

3.3. Data Collecting Technique................................................... ... 26

3.4. Research Procedures............................................................. .... 27

3.5. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking............................ ... 28

3.5.1. Validity………………………………………............... 30

3.5.2. Reliability…………................................................. .... 32

3.6. Data Analysis ……………………………………………...... 33

3.7. Hypothesis Testing ………………………………………........ 34

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1.Teaching and Learning Process............................................. ... 36

4.2. Results of Pre-Test.................................................................. 38

4.3. Results of Post-Test................................................................. 49

4.4. Normality Test......................................................................... 58

4.5.Hypothesis Testing…………................................................... 62

4.6. Students’ Increase in Speaking Taught by Using

Communicative Drill and Role Play....................................... 63

4.7. Students’ Increase in Speaking on Each Aspect…….............. 64

4.7.1. Students’ Increase in Each Aspect on

Communicative Drill Class.......................................... 64

4.7.2. Students’ Increase in Each Aspect on Role Play

Class........................................................................... 68

4.8. Discussions............................................................................ 72

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions............................................................................... 76

5.2. Suggestions............................................................................... 77

5.2.1. Suggestions for English Teachers…………………… 77

5.2.2. Suggestions for Further Research…………………… 77

REFERENCES……………………………………………………… 79

APPENDICES………………………………………………………. 81

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the the following points: The background, formulation,

objectives, uses, scope as well as the definition of key terms, discussed as follows.

1.1. Background

Learning English cannot be separated from learning the four language skills, i.e.

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Thus, the four language skills are

integrated one another which the students have learnt from elementary level, up to

senior high school level.

Speaking is the second step in learning language. In spite of that, most researchers

believe that speaking is also a crucial skill to master. Speaking skill should be

improved along with the three other skills like listening, reading, and writing so

that these skills can enhance student’s ability to communicate. Brown (2001) says

that speaking is literally defined as to say things, to express thought aloud, and to

use the voice.

Indonesian students should master English as an international language by which

they can make a conversation with foreigners, give ideas and get information.

Nowadays, the students are demanded to learn English and some of the schools

also make the students to use English in daily conversation because conversation

is a foundation to communicate with foreigners.

2

Many students have problems in learning English especially speaking. Based on

the researcher’s experience when conducting teaching practice program

(PPL/2015) in the SMA N 1 Pagar Dewa, it was found that there were many

students had some difficulties in speaking. First, students are afraid to speak

because they lack of vocabularies. They usually depended themselves on teachers

to give some examples and some vocabularies. Second, students do not

understand grammar well. Lastly, they lack of pronunciation. Students are afraid

of making mistakes when speaking because they think that their pronunciation are

poor. As Adnan (2015) states that there are many problems that make students

cannot speak English, such as: students’ lack of vocabularies, grammar,

pronunciation, practice and also confidence to speak English. He also assumes

that there are no bad students if the teacher teaches them well.

The problem stated above might have been caused by teacher’s way of teaching.

The selection of incorrect technique may cause difficulties in learning English for

students. Moreover, students always depend on teacher. What the teacher gives to

the students is what they take. If the teacher only gives what is written on the

book without considering using the connection in the subject matter with the

students’ daily lives, it will make them difficult to learn English. In this case, the

teacher should be creative to make the students to be able to speak English in a

communicative way. Using a suitable technique can give a huge impact in

teaching speaking. Setiyadi (2006) says that the teacher considerably needs to

provide the students with the right techniques, so that they are optimally engaged

in studying. One of the successful keys in teaching learning process may depend

much on the methods or strategies the teachers employ in the classroom.

In this research, the researcher wanted to implement active learning as the method

to improve students’ speaking ability. Active learning is students-centered method

3

in teaching learning process. According to Janah (2013:3), active learning is an

activity which makes the students to be active in learning process rather than just

listening and taking notes. The students are expected to be actively involved. They

have to do more than just listen; read, write, discuss and also they can solve

problems. Janah also says that active learning can be defined as instructional

activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are

doing. According to Silberman (1996) in Janah (2013), Communicative Drill and

also Role Play are the examples of techniques in instructional practices of active

learning.

Communicative drill is one of the techniques in active learning. It is one of the

types from Audio Lingual Method and also a part of Communicative Language

Teaching. Role playing within a set situation ordering a meal, carrying on a

telephone conversation, buying groceries is one way of working with

communicative drills as stated by Paulston and Bruder (1976). Apart from the title

word ‘drill’, communicative drill is not like any other drill in ALM. As stated by

Paulston and Bruder (1976:20), the difference between communicative drill and

meaningful drill is that in the communicative drill the speaker should add new

information about the real world in the end. Moreover, by using communicative

drill, the students can work individually or in pair.

Another technique that can be used derived from active learning is Role Play.

Apart from the active learning method, Role Play is also a technique from

Communicative Language Teaching. According to Doff (1990:232) Role Play is a

way of bringing situations from real life into the classroom. This technique allows

the students to play as somebody else or themselves and to put the situation in

their dialogue. This technique according to Brown (2001:183), can be played as a

single player, in pair or in groups where each person has a role to accomplish an

4

objective. So, it can make them understand better because of the real-life role in

their conversation. Furthermore, role play can make the students more creative

and they will enjoy role play activity because they can imagine themselves in

another person’s live.

There have been several studies about communicative drill and role play. First, a

previous research conducted by Ulfi Alifatul Jannah (2013). The research was

conducted to find out whether there was a difference of students’ speaking ability

between those who were taught through communicative drill technique and those

through role play technique or not. As a result, there was a difference of students’

speaking ability between those who were taught through communicative drill

technique and those through role play technique and communicative drill

technique was more effective than role play technique to improve students’

speaking ability at second year students of junior high school.

Second, Riswanto and Haryanto (2012) proved that based on result of data

analysis there was an improvement on students’ pronunciation achievement in

each cycle. This research indicated that the use of drilling technique can improve

students’ pronunciation achievement at the first year students of SMAN 07 South

Bengkulu academic year 2011/ 2012.

Third, Frida (2015) stated in her research that there was a significant improvement

towards role play teachnique. There was a significant improvement of students`

speaking ability before and after being taught by role play technique. Moreover, it

can be proved by the increase of students` mean score in the pre-test and post-

test. The result of post-test was higher than the result of pre-test.

5

And fourth, in a research conducted by Maulani (2014), there was also significant

improvement found in the research. The t-value in this research was (7.177) which

was more than t-table (2.045) and the significance score was 0.00 which meant

that the result had fulfilled the requirement to be said as a significant

improvement.

Based on the reasons above, both techniques are equal one another which are

derived from Active Learning and Communicative Language Teaching methods.

Also, there were so many researches about the improvement in students’ speaking

ability taught by using role play. Meanwhile, there was only one research about

communicative drill in improving students’ pronunciation and one research in

comparing both techniques. This research was the same Janah’s research which

used Communicative Drill and Role Play in teaching speaking but the subject was

different. Thus, the researcher tried to find out whether there was a significant

difference between those who were taught by using communicative drill or role

play and which one was more effective in improving students’ speaking ability in

a communicative way in high school.

1.2. Formulation of Problems

Based on the background that has been discussed above, the researcher formulates

the problems as follows:

1. Is there any significant differences in students’ speaking ability taught by

using communicative drill and role play?

2. What aspect of speaking will be mostly increased between those who are

taught by using communicative drill and role play?

6

1.3. Objectives

The objectives of this research comprise:

1. To find out whether there is a significant difference in students’ speaking

ability taught by communicative drill and role play.

2. To find out what aspect of speaking will be mostly increased between

those who are taught by using communicative drill and role play.

1.4. Uses

The uses of the research are as follow:

1. Theoretically, the findings of the research are expected to support one of the

theories on teaching techniques for speaking.

2. Practically, the results of this research are expected to be beneficial:

a. As contribution to the further educational research development.

b. As information and reference to English teacher, which one of the two

techniques that is more effective in teaching speaking.

1.5. Scope

This quantitative research was conducted in the first grade of SMA N 7 Bandar

Lampung. The researcher chose two classes which both were experimental

classes. Moreover, this research was focused on teaching with communicative

drill and role play in order to know which technique was more effective toward

speaking ability. The researcher conducted the treatment in three meetings. The

teaching material of the research was descriptive text.

7

1.6. Definition of Key Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding from the readers, definition(s) of terms are

provided as follows:

Speaking is an ability of the student in saying and responding to something in

front of the class.

Active learning is a method where the teaching-learning process is students

centered and make the students to not only listen and to take notes but also

involve and to be active.

Communicative drill is a drill that students should add new information about

real world at the end of the question or drill.

Role play is an activity that students will have role as another people to be played

and to accomplish a purpose in communication.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses about speaking, types of speaking, teaching speaking,

active learning, communicative drill, role play, teaching speaking using

communicative drill, teaching speaking using role-play, advantages and

disadvantages of using communicative drill, advantages and disadvantages of

using role play, theoretical assumption and hypothesis.

2.1. Speaking

There are many definitions of speaking that have been proposed by some experts

in language learning.

Brown (2001) says that when someone can speak a language it means that he can

carry on a conversation reasonably competently. In addition, he states that the

benchmark of successful acquisition of language is almost always the

demonstration of an ability to accomplish pragmatic goals through an interactive

discourse with other language speakers.

Richards and Renandya (2002) state that effective oral communication requires

the ability to use the language appropriately in social interactions that involves not

only verbal communication but also paralinguistic elements of speech such as

pitch, stress, and intonation. Moreover, nonlinguistic elements such as gestures,

body language, and expressions are needed in conveying messages directly

without any accompanying speech. Brown (2007: 237) states that social contact in

interactive language functions is an important key and in which it is not what you

9

say that counts but how you say it and what you convey with body language,

gestures, eye contact, physical distance and other nonverbal messages.

Brown (1994) also states that speaking is an interactive process of constructing

meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information. Its

form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the

participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment,

and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving.

However, speech is not always unpredictable. Language functions (or patterns)

that tend to recur in certain discourse situations (e.g., declining an invitation or

requesting time off from work), can be identified and charted (Burns &Joyce,

1997). For example, when a salesperson asks "May I help you?" the expected

discourse sequence includes a statement of need, response to the need, offer of

appreciation, acknowledgement of the appreciation, and a leave-taking exchange.

In conclusion, speaking is the ability to produce sounds that convey meaning for

the hearer, or in another words to use proper language in oral communication. It is

also a process to construct meaning from what speaker speaks or processing

information.

2.2. Types of Speaking

Brown (2001) provides several types of classroom speaking performance, they

are:

1. Imitative

A very limited portion of classroom speaking time may legitimately be spent

generating “human tape-recorder” speech, for example learner practices an

intonation contour or tries to pinpoint a certain vowel sound. Imitation of kind is

10

carried out not for the purpose of meaningful interaction but for focus on some

particular element of language.

2. Intensive

Intensive speaking goes to step beyond imitative to include any speaking

performance that is design to practice some phonological or grammatical aspect of

language. Intensive speaking can be self-initiated or it can even form part of some

pair work activity, where learners are “going over” certain forms of language.

3. Responsive

A good dealt of student speech in the classroom is responsive short applies to

teacher or students initiated question or comment. These replies are usually

sufficient and do not extend into dialogues. Such speech can be meaningful and

authentic.

4. Transactional (dialogue)

Transactional dialogue, which is carried out for the purpose of conveying or

exchanging specific information is an extended form of responsive language.

Conversation, for example, may have more of a negotiate nature to them then does

responsive speech.

5. Interpersonal (dialogue)

Interpersonal dialogue carried out more of maintaining social relationship than for

the transmission of facts and information. The conversation is a little tracker for

learners because they can involve some or all the following factors:

- A casual register

- Colloquial language

- Emotionally charge language

11

- Slang

- Ellipsis

- Sarcasm

- A convert “agenda”

6. Extensive (monologue)

Finally, students at intermediate to advance level are called on to give extended

monologues in the form of oral reports, summaries, or perhaps short speeches. In

this register is more formal and deliberative.

In this research, transactional dialogue seems to be the most suitable category for

role play and responsive for communicative drill.

2.3. Teaching Speaking

According to Chaney (1998:13), speaking is the process of building and sharing

meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of

contexts. Speaking is a crucial part of communication and also second language

learning, Brown (2001: 275-276) states that there are seven principles for

designing speaking techniques.

a. Use techniques that cover the spectrum of learner needs, from language based

focus on accuracy to message-based on interaction, meaning, and fluency.

b. Provide intrinsically motivating techniques.

c. Encourage the use of authentic language in meaningful contexts.

d. Provide appropriate feedback and correction.

e. Capitalize on the natural link between speaking and listening.

f. Give students opportunities to initiate oral communication.

g. Encourage the development of speaking strategies, it has close relation with

listening.

12

According to Nunan (2003), teaching speaking is to teach learners to use the

language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which is called as

fluency. Harmer (1998:122) also states that there are criteria in teaching speaking

for teachers to meet. He suggests that a good plan needs to have judicious blend of

coherence and variety coherence means that students can see the logical pattern to

the lesson. The various activities in learning process must have connection

between them. This statement suggests that the teacher is required to provide

students with a wide range of activities or tasks which are rich in variety but have

logical connection to each other.

So, it can be concluded that teaching speaking is the act to teach learners how to

produce English speech sounds and sound patterns, to use appropriate words

according to proper social setting, and can organize their thoughts in a meaningful

and logical sequence.

2.4. Active Learning

Felder & Brent (2009: 2) define active learning as anything course-related that all

students in a class session are called upon to do other than simply watching,

listening and taking notes. It can be inferred that active learning makes the

students active in class and can speak up. Moreover, Bonwell and Eison (1991)

state that active learning is an instructional method which engages students in

learning process. It means that active learning requires students to do meaningful

learning activities and think about what they are doing. It also can include

traditional activities such as homework. In short active learning is an activity that

is introduced towards classroom. Active learning also encourages students to be

actively involved or in another names it is students-centered, which is contrast

with traditional teaching learning.

13

Bonwell and Eison (1991) also give the characteristics of active learning. They

are:

1. Students are involved in more than listening.

2. Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on

extending students' skills and ideas.

3. Students are involved in higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis,

evaluation).

4. Students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussion, writing).

5. Greater emphasis is placed on students' exploration of their own attitudes,

values, and prior experiences.

Silberman (1996) as quoted by Janah (2013) says that in active learning there are

some techniques that can be used in teaching learning process. These techniques

can encourage students to think about what they are learning. Instructional

practices that are adopted in engaging students in the learning process is the

defining feature of active learning. They are:

1. Full-class learning

The whole students in the class are stimulated by the teacher. The

examples of activities are; inquiring minds what to know, listening team,

guide note-taking, lecture bingo, what’s my line and guided teaching.

2. Class discussion

Students try to be active in class activities such as dialogue and debate

activities about specific cases to be discussed. The examples of activities

are; active debate, communicative drill, town meeting, expanding panel,

and reading aloud.

14

3. Question prompting

Students give quick question to ask clarification. The examples of

activities are; learning starts with a question, planted questions, and role

reversal questions.

4. Collaborative learning

A small discussion will be made by students and they will solve the

problem collaboratively. The examples of activities are; information

search, the study group, card sort, learning tournament, and the power of

two.

5. Peer teaching

Students get and learn the information from their friends. The examples of

activities are; group to group, jigsaw learning, everyone is a teacher here,

peer lesson, students-created case studies, in the news, and poster session.

6. Independent learning

Students learn individually, but teacher will be the guide and observer. The

examples of activities are; imagine, writing in here and now, mind maps,

action learning, learning journals and learning contract.

7. Effective learning

Students try to share their ideas based on what they feel and what they

think of the society norm. The examples of activities are; seeng how it is,

billboard ranking, what? So what? Now what? Active self assessment, and

role models.

8. Skill development

Students develop their skill in technique or non technique. The examples

of activities are; active observation and feedback, non-threatening role

playing, role play, rotating roles, modeling the way and advisory group.

15

Communicative drill is from class discussion actvity while role play is from skill

development activity. Class discussion needs some cases to be discussed and can

encourage students to speak up and to be active. Skill development can develop

students skill in technique or non technique such as communication skill. Thus,

Communicative drill and role play are one of the interesting techniques that can be

used in teaching learning process. Those techniques can make active learning

situation in the class and will encourage students to be active and to be creative to

learn english.

2.5. Communicative Drill

Drill is a technique which has been used a long time ago in foreign language

classrom. It is derived from Audio Lingual Method which uses drill as the main

technique in language teaching which emphasis on repeating structural pattern

through oral practice. In drill technique the students will listen to the model or

tape and then they will repeat what they have heard. In addition, Paulston and

Bruder (1976:15) say that there are three classes of drills; mechanical, meaningful

and communicative. Those drills can be distinguished from each other if they are

analyzed in terms of expected terminal behavior, degree of response control, type

of learning process involved, and criteria of the selection of utterance response.

According to Janah (2013:17), communicative drill is quite different from the so-

called meaningless and mechanical drills use in a traditional grammar oriented

class by some teachers, in which the primary focus is on the form of the language

being used rather than its communicative content. The students have to process

the language and they have opportunities to interact with the input. The language

that they hear will be processed and the students will construct the grammar and

match it to the expression or utterance according to the grammar. Then, when the

students produce utterance, they will follow the grammatical rules. This kind of

16

drilling is quite the same with the other drilling types, but the emphasis is that at

the end the students can include any other information which is in real world that

contains communicative value. As stated by Paulston and Bruder in 1976:20, the

difference between communicative drill and meaningful drill is that in the

communicative drill the speaker should add new information about the real world

in the end.

Guided Reply

1. Do you read the Daily News editorials?

The Times is the paper whose editorials I read.

No.

The paper whose editorials I read is The Times.

2. Are you familiar with Burma's problems?

Thailand is the country whose problems I am familiar with.

No.

The country whose problems I am familiar with is Thailand.

3. Did you fly over here on a United Airlines plane?

4. Are you taking Professor Wiley's course?

Communicative drills provided by John Carroll (1953) in Paulston and Bruder

(1976) are ‘problem-solving' situation in which the student must find appropriate

verbal responses for solving the problem, 'learning' by a trial-and-error process,

and to communicate rather than merely to utter the speech patterns in the lesson. It

is a very different experience from mechanical drilling. It is practice in

performance by practice in generating new utterances in order to internalize the

rules of the grammar.

17

Another example is guessing game. The teacher has something in mind (things,

job, event, etc.) and the students must guess that thing by using yes no question as

stated by Janah (2013):

Students : Is it in the class?

Teacher : Yes, it is.

Students : Is it blue?

Teacher : No, it is not.

Students : Is it black?

Teacher : Yes, it is.

Students : Is it in the front of the class?

Teacher : Yes, it is.

Students : Is it black board?

Teacher : Yes, it is.

From the statement above, the researcher can design better conmmunicative

activities based on communicative drill, so that the learner can produce various

utterance.

2.6. Role Play

Role play is a technique that allows the students to play as somebody else or

themselves and put the situation in their dialogue, just like a drama. Ladousse

(2004) as quoted by Huang (2008), indicates that role play is one of a whole

gamut of communicative techniques which develops fluency in language students,

which promotes interaction in the classroom, and which increases motivation. In

addition, he points out that role play encourages peer learning and sharing the

responsibility for learning between teacher and student. He suggests role play to

be, perhaps, the most flexible technique in the ranged of communicative

18

techniques, and with suitable and effective role-play exercises, teachers can meet

an infinite variety of needs.

Meanwhile according to Brown (2001) in Huang (2008), role-play minimally

involves giving a role to one or more members of a group and assigning an

objective or purpose that participants must accomplish. Brown also suggests role-

play can be conducted with a single person, in pairs or in groups, with each person

assigns a role to accomplish an objective. Furthermore, Furness (1976:19) states

that a child can enjoy and profit from a role play experience in terms of improved

communication skills, creativity, increased social awareness, independent

thinking, verbalization of opinions, development of values and appreciation of the

art of drama.

Stern (1983) as cited by Huang (2008) suggests role playing helps the individual

to become more flexible and develop a sense of mastery in many situations. She

suggests that through role play, learners can experience many kinds of situations

in which they will use the language; and as they develop a sense of mastery in

them, they should be able to apply the language more easily to new situations. It

means that the ‘role’ which the students will play in the dialogue is a set as if they

are in real life. They will have opportunity to act and interact. This can make

students more creative and will develop their thinking. Moreover, it also inlvoves

students’ imagination in acting, so they will think it is interesting.

There are two kinds of role play; unscripted role play and scripted role play.

Scripted role play needs textbook dialogue or to read text in the form of speech to

play the role, while unscripted role play is more naturally spoken or it needs

improvisation to do the role. Doff (1988) in Janah (2013:14) provides an example

of scripted role play dialogue:

19

Angela : Good morning. I want to send a letter to Singapore.

Clerk : Yes, do you want to send it by airmail or ordinary mail?

Angela : I think I’ll send it airmail. I want to get there quickly.

How much does it cost?

Clerk : To Singapore? That will be 30 pence, please.

Angela : (Give the clerk 50 pence) Here you are.

Clerk : Here’s your stamp and here’s 20 pence change.

Angela : Thank you. Where is the post box?

Clerk : You want the airmail box. It’s over there, by the door.

While the example of unscripted text as adapted from Doff (1988) in Janah

(2013:24):

One student has lost a bag.

He/she is at the police station.

The other student is the police officer and ask for the details.

To bring the ideas:

1. The teacher can prepare the whole class by:

a. Discussing what the speaker may say (e.g. the police officer would

ask the students how he/she lost a bag);

b. Writing a prompt on the board to gudie the role play, and any key

vocabulary.

2. The teacher can divide the class into pairs, and:

a. Let them discuss together what they may say.

b. Let them all try out the role play privately, before calling on one of

two pairs to act out in front of the class.

20

So, the researcher assumes that role play is a technique which involves students’

imagination to become somebody else as their role in a specific situation. They

will have to make their own dialogue and make it as if in the real world just like in

scenario. Furthermore, they will think it is interesting as well as build their

confidence, thinking and creativity. In this research, the researcher used

unscripted role play in order to make the students to be active and to decide what

language to use as well as can develop the conversation.

2.7. Teaching Speaking Using Communicative Drill

This research conducted teaching speaking using Communicative Drill as the

technique. Fangzhi (1998) as quoted by Janah (2013) explains the procedures to

teach speaking using communicative drills:

1. In pairs, students interview each other about what special skills each of

them has.

2. If the initial questions are not adequate for the students to get a

comprehensive idea of the special abilities of his/her partner, the

student is being interviewed should provide more information

voluntarily.

3. Students report to the whole class what abilities his/her partner has.

Pearson (1998) also states two procedures to teach speaking using communicative

drills:

I. ID Game

1. Attach a picture or name of a famous person to the back of each student.

2. The students then walk around the class asking each other yes/no questions

(e.g. Is it a man? Is he American? Is he a sportsman? etc.)

3. They can ask only one question to each student at a time until they have

enough information to guess correctly who their person is.

21

II. A Day in the Life of (Someone’s name)

1. Put word or picture prompts on the board such as get up – time? Breakfast

– food? Drink? Get to school – how? How long? Etc.

2. One volunteer student sits at the front of the class and other students find

out about his/her day by asking yes/no questions.

3. They cannot move on to the next question until a positive answer is

received. For example, Did you get up at 7.00? No. Did you get up at

7.30? No. Did you get up at 7.45? Yes. Did you eat cornflakes for

breakfast? Etc. (This can be adapted to present questions by asking about

the student’s daily routine. This can then be followed up by repeating the

same procedure in pairs.)

4. The students can then report their findings to another student. (Thus,

drilling the past simple or present simple depending on which is used in

the original activity.)

2.8. Teaching Speaking Using Role Play

The technique that used in this research is role play. According to Susan House

(1997) in Janah (2013), she states that there are several procedures in using role

play:

1. Students read and familiarize themselves with the example dialogue.

2. Students will be divided in pairs, A and B, give A and B roles from

dialogue.

3. Students act out their role play, not just say them but students should

read it loudly.

4. Teacher will walk around correcting and checking.

5. Students swap roles and repeat, those who finish first can be asked to

make up their own role play, using different words to fill the gaps.

22

The other procedure for role play adapted from Doff (1998) in Julianda (2015).

The procedures explained by Doff:

(Situation)

1. The students work in pairs

2. One as a tour guide, one as a tourist.

3. The tourist guide (expert) is given text about an interesting place in

Indonesia.

4. The tourist asing about an interesting place in Indonesia.

5. They perform in front of class.

2.9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Communicative Drill

The advantages and disadvantage of Communicative Drill as quoted from Janah

(2013)

The advantages:

1. It helps the students memorize language by the teacher’s control.

2. It makes the teacher can correct any mistakes that students make and

encourage them to concrete on difficulties at the sometime.

Disadvantages:

1. Drilling often makes the students not very creative. In all drills, learners

have no or very little choice over what is said.

2. The teacher needs to handle the drills, so that the students are not over

used and they do not go on far too long. One of the problem of

communicative drills is that they are quite monotonous.

23

2.10. Advantages and Disadvantages of Role Play

The advantages of Role Play as stated by Ladousse (1995) in Janah (2013:26):

1. A very wide variety of experience can be brought into the classroom and

we can treat our students in speaking skill in any situations through role

play.

2. Some people are learning English to prepare for specific roles in their

lives. It is helpful for these students to try and experiment with the

language they will require in the friendly and safe environment of a

classroom.

3. Helps many shy students by providing them with a mask.

The disadvantages of role play as stated by Janah (2013:26):

1. It can be time-consuming to prepare.

2. It can be difficult to evaluate effectiveness.

3. It may cause discomfort and embarrassment for students.

4. It spends much of time during the teaching-learning process.

2.11. Theoritical Assumption

There are many ways or techniques that can be used in teaching and learning

speaking. Yet, only several of them that are better and can give impact directly in

increasing speaking ability. Despite of the techniques, the teacher should also

prepare the material and make the material as interesting as possible.

Based on the explanation of active learning through communication drill and role

play, the researcher believes that there is a significant difference between those

two techniques in improving students’ achivement in speaking. The researcher

also believes that there is an increase in each technique. The reason is because

24

both techniques encourage students to be active in teaching-learning process.

Furthermore, communicative drill and role play will help students to monitor and

direct their own learning, share their ideas based on background knowledge, to

analyze and find the pattern of knowledge by themselves. The researcher also

assumes that fluency and comprehensibility are the aspects that increase the most

because communicative drill and role play encourage students to speak up and

understand what they are saying and what the others are saying to them.

2.11. Hypothesis

The researcher proposes the following hypotheses:

1. There is a significant difference in students’ speaking ability taught by

using communicative drill and role play.

2. Fluency and Comprehensibility are the aspects that increase the most.

III. RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter discusses about the methods of the research, which are research

design, population and sample, variables, data collecting technique, research

procedures, criteria of evaluating students’ speaking, validity and reliability, data

analysis, and hypothesis testing.

3. 1. Research Design

The research was quantitative research. The goal of this research was to find out

whether there was significant difference in students’ speaking ability after being

taught by using communicative drill and role play. The students had pre-test

before treatment and they had post-test after the treatment. The researcher took

two classes as experimental classes. The research design is presented as follows:

G1: T1 X1 T2

G2: T1 X2 T2

G1 : Group 1 or communicative drill

G2 : Group 2 or role play

T1 : Pre-test

T2 : Post-test

X1 : Treatment (teaching speaking using communicative drill)

X2 : Treatment (teaching speaking using role play)

(Setiyadi 2006:132)

26

The treatments were conducted into three meetings of activities and each meeting

took 2 x 45 minutes.

3. 2. Population and Sample

The population of this research was the first grade students of SMAN 7 Bandar

Lampung in academic year 2015/2016 which consists of 7 classes and there are

about 35 students in each class. Two classes were taken as the sample of this

research; X5 and X6. In determining the experimental classes, the researcher used

the simple random sampling technique by using lottery which was taken by the

teacher. So, all of those first grade classes got the same chance to be selected as

the sample.

3. 3. Data Collecting Technique

In collecting the data, the researcher will use two techniques as follows:

1. Pre-test

The researcher administered pre-test before treatment. It was aimed to know

the students’ speaking skill before the treatment, teaching using

communicative drill and role play was given. The researcher administered the

pre-test to get to know the equality and difference of the students of the two

classes. Before conducting the pre-test, the researcher gave the topic and

information, and then the students chose the topics and performed it in front of

the class. The tests were focused in oral test and the researcher recorded

students’ performance. The time provided was 2x45 minutes for all students.

2. Post-test

The researcher administered post-test after the treatments. It was the same as

in the pre-test, but it was aimed to see the development of the students from

two classes after having the treatment. The researcher recorded the students’

performance. The time provided was 2x45 minutes for all students.

27

3. 4. Research Procedures

The procedures of the research are as follows:

1. Selecting and Determining the Population and Sample

The population of the research was the students of SMAN 7 Bandar

Lampung as population. The samples were two classes and there were 35

students each. Their age range was from 16 to 17 years old. The researcher

took two classes as the sample of the research.

2. Selecting Speaking Material

In selecting the speaking material, the researcher used the syllabus of the

second year of high school student based on school based curriculum or

KTSP, which was the curriculum uses by the school.

3. Conducting Pre-test.

Pre-test was given before the treatment (teaching speaking by using

Communicative Drill and Role Play). The test was speaking test. The

material of the test was related to the KTSP curriculum which was suitable

with their level. The test was focused on oral test. The scoring system was

based on the rating scale by Harris (1974).

4. Giving Treatment.

The researcher presented the material for treatment by using

Communicative Drill and Role Play techniques. The students were

commanded by teacher to respond or to answer the questions. There were

three times treatments in this research. Each treatment held for 90 minutes.

5. Conducting Post-test.

The post-test was administered after treatment. It was to find out the

progress of the students’ speaking ability after they had being given the

treatment using Communicative Drill and Role Play. The scoring system

was based on the rating scale by Harris.

28

6. Analyzing, Interpreting and Concluding The Data.

After collecting the data which was students’ utterances in intensive

speaking, the recorded data was scored by the two raters. The data was

analyzed by referring the rating scale namely pronunciation, vocabulary,

fluency, comprehensibility and grammar.

3. 5. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking

The consideration of criteria for evaluating students’ speaking ability was based

on the oral rating sheet from Harris (1974). There are five aspects to be tested:

pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehensibility.

Table of specification

Aspects ofspeaking Rating scales Description

Pronunciation

5 Has few traces of foreign accent.

4Always intelligible though one isconscious of a definite accent.

3Pronunciation problems necessitateconcentrated listening and occasionallylead to understanding.

2Very hard to understand because ofpronunciation problem. Must frequentlybe asked to repeat.

1Pronunciation problem so severe as tomake speech virtually unintelligible.

Grammar

5Makes few (if any) noticeable errors ofgrammar or word order.

4Occasionally makes grammatical and/orword order errors which do not, however,obscure meaning.

3Makes frequent errors of grammar andword order which occasionally obscuremeaning.

2

Grammar and word order errors makecomprehensibility difficult. Must oftenrephrase sentences and/or restrict himselfto basic patterns.

1Errors in grammar and word order sosevere as to make speech virtuallyunintelligible.

29

Vocabulary

5Use of vocabulary and idiom virtually thatis of native speaker.

4Sometimes use inappropriate terms andmust rephrase ideas because of lexicalinadequacies.

3Frequently use the wrong word;conversation somewhat limited because ofinadequate vocabulary.

2Misuse of words and very limitedvocabulary make comprehensibility quitedifficult.

1Speech is so halting and fragmentary as tomake conversation virtually impossible.

Fluency

5Speech as fluent and effortless as that ofnative speaker.

4Speed of speech seems rather stronglyaffected by language problems.

3Speed and fluency are rather stronglyaffected by language problems.

2Usually hesitant; often forced into silenceby language limitations.

1Speech is so halting and fragmentary as tomake conversation virtually impossible.

Comprehensibility

5Appear to understand everything withoutdifficulty.

4Understand nearly everything at normalspeed although occasionally repetitionmay be necessary.

3Understand most of what is said at slower-than-normal speed with repetitions.

2

Has great difficulty following what is saidcan comprehend only “socialconversation" spoken slowly and withfrequent repetitions.

1Cannot be said to understand even simpleconversational English.

30

3.5.1. Validity

A test is considered valid if the test measures the object to be measured and

suitable with the criteria (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 250). A test must aim to

provide true measure of the particular skill which is intended to measure.

According to the Hatch and Farhady (1982;281) there are two basic types of

validity; content validity and construct validity. The validity of the pre-test and

post-test in this research related to the content validity and construct validity of

the test.

Content validity is concerned with whether the test is sufficiently representative

and comprehensive for the test. In the content validity, the material was given

suitable with the curriculum. Content validity is the extend to which a test

measures a representative sample of the subject meter content, the focus of

content validity is adequacy of the sample and simply on the appearance of the

test.

Construct Validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line with the

theory of what it means to the language. In this research, the researcher measured

the pre-test and post-test’s certain aspect based on the indicator. It is examined by

referring the aspects that measure with the theories of the aspect namely,

pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehensibility, and grammar. A table of

specification is an instrument that helps the raters plan the test.

The scores of each point are multiplied by four. Hence, the highest score is 100.

For example:

If the students get 5, so 5 X 4 = 204, so 4 X 4 = 163, so 3 X 4 = 122, so 2 X 4 = 8

31

1, so 1 X 4 = 4For instance:

A student got 4 in Pronunciation, 4 in Vocabulary, and 3 in Fluency, 4 in

comprehensibility and 3 in grammar.

Therefore, the student’s total score will be:

Pronunciation 4 X 4 = 16Vocabulary 4 X 4 = 16Fluency 4 X 4 = 16Comprehensibility 4 X 4 = 16Grammar 3 X 4 = 12Total 68It means he or she got 68 for speaking.

The score of speaking based on five components can be compared in the

percentage as follows:

Grammar 20%Vocabulary 20%Fluency 20%Pronunciation 20%Comprehensibility 20%

Total = 100%

Table of Rating Sheet Score

S’s

Codes

Pron.

(1-

20)

Fluen.

(1-20)

Gram.

(1-20)

Voc.

(1-

20)

Compr.

(1-20)

Total

(1-

100)

1.

2.

3.

32

3.5.2. Reliability

Reliability refers to extent to which the test is consistent in its score and gives us

an indication of how accurate the test score are (Shohamy, 1985:70). In achieving

the reliability of the pre-test and post-test of speaking, inter rater reliability was

used in this study. The first rater is the researcher herself and the second rater is

the English teacher from SMA N 7 Bandar Lampung who has graduated her

undergraduate program from STKIP Tanjung Karang in 1999. She had been a

teacher in STKIP since 2000 until 2010. She also taught English lesson in SMK N

2 Kalianda from 2003 until 2013. Then, in 2014 she has been teaching as English

teacher in SMA N 7 Bandar Lampung until now.

In achieving the reliability of pre-test and post-test of speaking test, first and

second raters discussed of the speaking criteria in order to obtain the reliable

result of the test. Besides inter rater reliability that was used in this research, the

researcher also used the statistical formula for counting the reliability score

between the first and second raters.

The statistical formula of reliability is as follow:

R= − ( )( )R = Reliability

N = Number of students

d = the different of between R1 and R2

d2 = the square of d

1-6 = Constant number

After finding the coefficient between raters, the researcher analyzed the

coefficient of reliability with the standard of reliability below:

33

a) A very low reliability (range from 0.00 to 0.19)

b) A low reliability (range from 0.20 to 0.39)

c) An average reliability (range from 0.40 to 0.59)

d) A high reliability (range from 0.60 to 0.79)

e) A very high reliability (range from 0.80 to 0.100)

(Slameto, 1998: 147)

3.6. Data Analysis

To get to know the improvement of students’ speaking ability taught by using

communicative drill and role play and students’ score was computed by doing

these activities:

1. Scoring the pre-test and the post-test.

2. Finding the mean of pre-test and post-test.

The mean was calculated by applying this formula:M = ∑Where:M : Mean (average score)∑ : The Total of the Students’ Score

N : The Total Number of the Students

(Hatch and Farhadi, 1982:25)

After the datas were collected, the researcher treated the data by using the

following procedures:

Putting the data of score of pre-test (T1) and posttest (T2) on table below:

S’

code

Pronunciat

ion

Vocabul

aryFluency

Comprehens

ibility

Gramm

arTotal

R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2

34

1

2

Row data of oral test

No Students’ codeRater 1 Rater2

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

1 A

2 B

3 C

….

3.7. Hypothesis Testing

The post-test from Communicative Drill class and post-test from Role Play class

were compared in order to know whether the hypothesis proposed in this research

was accepted or not. The researcher used Repeated Measures T-test toward the

average score of post-test from Communicative Drill class and post-test from Role

Play class since the aim of repeated measures T-test was to compare two kinds of

data or mean from the same sample. However, the result of t-test was used to

know the significant difference on students’ speaking abilities before and after

being taught using Communicative Drill and Role Play. The researcher used the

level of significance 0,05 in which the hypothesis was approved if α < 0,05. It

meant that the probability of error in the hypothesis was only 5%.

The formulation is:

t = t =( )∑( )

and

35

= − (∑ )As details:

Md = mean from the differences pre test and post test

Xd = deviation of each subject (d – Md)∑ = total of quadratic deviation

N = total of sample

(Arikunto, 1991: 349-350)

The hypothesis testing stated as follow:

H0 : There is no significant difference between students’ speaking ability

taught by using Communicative Drill and Role Play. The criteria H0 is

accepted if alpha level is higher than 0.05 (α > 0.05).

H1 : There is a significant difference between students’ speaking ability

taught by using Communicative Drill and Role Play. The criteria H1 is

accepted if alpha level is lower than 0.05 (α < 0.05).

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter is the final chapter of this research. This chapter presents the

conclusion of the research findings and suggestions for English teacher for further

research.

5.1. Conclusion

After conducting the research at the tenth grade students of SMAN 7 Bandar

Lampung and analyzing the data, the observer draws the conclusions as follows:

1. There is a significant difference of students’ speaking achievement

between the students who are taught through Communicative Drill and

Role Play technique as seen from the result of the hypothesis which shows

that the alpha is smaller than 0.05 (0.000 <0.05). In Communicative Drill

class, the students’ total score increased by 8,34, while in Role Play class

the total increase was 20 since they could develop their conversation based

on their imagination from the pictures they chose. On the other hand, in

Communicative Drill class, the students were quite passive because they

had limitation of communication in developing their conversation and had

to make the conversation based on the examples of dialogue given. Based

on this situation, it can be inferred that there is a significant difference of

the speaking achievements.

Furthermore, this also indicated the gain of Role Play technique was

higher than Communicative Drill in teaching speaking.

77

2. In term of speaking aspects; pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency,

and comprehension, fluency gained 2,11 and it was the highest gain for

Communicative Drill. However, pronunciation gained 4,34 and was the

aspect that increased the most for Role Play.

5.2. Suggestions

In reference to the conclusion above, the researcher recommends some

suggestions as follow:

5. 2. 1. Suggestions for English Teachers

a. The techniques used in this research can increase students’ speaking

achievement. Eventhough there were different results provided from the

techniques, it showed that Role Play gave more significant increase than

Communicative Drill.

b. English teachers are suggested to use Role Play in teaching speaking,

because Role Play can make the students develop their own conversation

based on their imagination and the students will enjoy it.

c. Since not every student can understand English well, the teacher should

give attention more to the students to help them how to costruct words or

to tell them how to pronounce and choose the right word.

d. Teacher should make the class as interesting as possible, furthermore if it

is the big class which usually is hard to handle. By giving them interesting

activity, the students will be interested and they will not chat or play

games on their phone while the other students are performing their

conversation.

5. 2. 2. Suggestions for Further Research

a. The researcher had applied Role Play and Communicative Drill with

descriptive text as the material to see students’ significant difference in

78

speaking achievement. Further researchers should apply other kinds of

texts, i.e. exposition, spoof, recount, report text etc.

b. Since the researcher just conducted her research at the first year of senior

high school, further research can be conducted on different level of student

at senior high school. It is to investigate whether there is a different result

in students’ speaking ability taught by using Role Play and

Communicative Drill in speaking achievement.

REFERENCES

Adnan, A. H. 2015. Teaching Speaking Through Popular English Song at theFirst Grade of SMAN 14 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.

Arikunto, S. 1991. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: PT.Rineka Cipta.

Bonwell, C.C., and Eison J. A. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitementin the Classroom. Washington DC: George Washington University.

Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to languagePedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach toLanguage Pedagogy. San Fransisco: State University.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5thed.). NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center forEnglish Language Teaching and Research.

Chaney, A. L., and T.L. Burke. 1998 Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Doff, A. 1990. Teach English: A Training Course for Teacher. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. 2009. Active learning: An introduction. ASQ HigherEducation Brief, 2(4).

Furness, P. 1976. Role Play in the Elementary School: A handbook for teachers.New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc

Harmer, J. 1998. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York:Longman.

Harris, D. 1974. Testing English as A Second Language. New York: Grow HillPress.

Hatch, E., and Farhady H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for AppliedLinguistic. London: New Burry House, Inc. Rowley.

Huang, I. Y. 2008. Role Play for ESL/EFL Children in the English Classroom.http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-RolePlay.html. Retrieved January 10, 2016.

80

Janah, U. A. 2013. A Comparative Study of Students’ Speaking Ability ThroughCommunicative Drill and Role Play Technique at the Second Year of SMP N 8Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.

Julianda, A. 2015. The Implementation of Role Play Technique to ImproveStudents’ Speaking Ability at First Year of SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung.Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.

Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Richards, J. C. and Renandya. W. A. 2002. Methodology in language.Cambridge: University Press.

Paulston, C. B., and Bruder, M. N. 1976. Teaching English as a SeccndLanguage: Techniques and Procedures. Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers. Inc.

Slameto. 1998. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta:Rineka Cipta.

Setiyadi, A. B., Ph.D. 2006. Metode Penelitian Untuk PengajaranBahasa Asing. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Setiyadi, A. B, Ph.D. 2006. Teaching English As A Foreign Language.Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the SecondLanguage Teaching. Tel-Aviv University.